Posted on 11/03/2009 4:58:22 AM PST by Saije
Few issues are more personal to soldiers than the question of whether they can trust their rifles. And few rifles in history have generated more controversy over their reliability than the American M-16 assault rifle and its carbine version, the M-4.
In recent weeks, a fresh round of complaints about weapon malfunctions in Afghanistan, mentioned in an Army historian’s report that documented small-arms jamming during the fierce battle in Wanat last year, has rekindled the discussion. Are the M-16 and M-4 the best rifles available for American troops? Or are they fussy and punchless and less than ideal for war?
Don’t expect a clear answer any time soon. Expect several clear answers at once – many of them contradictory. This is because when talk turns to the M-16 and the M-4, it enters emotionally charged territory. The conversation is burdened by history, cluttered with conflicting anecdotes, and argued over by passionate camps.
This much is indisputable: Since the mid-1960s, when at Gen. William C. Westmoreland’s request an earlier version of the M-16 became the primary American rifle in Vietnam, the reputation of the M-16 family has been checkered.
This is in part because the rifle had a painfully flawed roll-out. Beginning intensely in 1966, soldiers and Marines complained of the weapon’s terrifying tendency to jam mid-fight. What’s more, the jamming was often one of the worst sorts: a phenomenon known as “failure to extract,” which meant that a spent cartridge case remained lodged in the chamber after a bullet flew out the muzzle.
(Excerpt) Read more at atwar.blogs.nytimes.com ...
“That “contempt” comes from knowlege of the designs, not any particular derision of American companies or designers.”
FN’s M16 is an American design. The M2 is another one of those “inferior” designs. THe G36 (what the vaunted, but no better than the M16, XM8, was based on) is a knockoff of another Stoner design. I could go on. FN makes good products, but the are a foreign entity. Relying on foreign countries for the basics of our defense is foolhardy.
“If an American company (Magpul, for one) can step in and make a weapon that competes with the SCAR, the HK 416, and others, FINE. If not, that’s just the way it is.”
At one point in our history, we thought it critical to not only have the production of our defense material be located in the US, but that it also be under our control. Now, many US contenders are removed from competition early in the review process regardless of “design” or are restricted by the ATF from competing.
“Oh BTW the M-4 is made by Beretta.”
Don’t you mean the M9?
Dang yes, more coffee please.
Great job pointing out OLD designs.
I’ve worked on numerous multi-national weapons systems.
Do you have a problem with the seven-country participation and adoption of the MLRS system? How about our own adoption of British canonry and German tank guns?
In the end, the manufacturing ability for the M-16 remains in the US, or do you think Belgium will take the M-16 design back home with them? All FN small arms the US military procures are made in the USA. What more do you want?
Again, any new rifle is going to be made in America.
Sure, the ATF gets in the way of almost any new American small arms development. I cannot imagine what Magpul went through. But this is the fault of our government, not our manufacturing base.
“I’ve worked on numerous multi-national weapons systems.”
So have I.
“How about our own adoption of British canonry and German tank guns?”
Yes, I do, frankly.
XM8 was supposed to be “new”. What “newer” designs are we talking about? The 416 and SCAR are not particularly “new” designs either. One of the few “new” designs was the P90 and that is not exactly “new”, either.
“Again, any new rifle is going to be made in America.
Sure, the ATF gets in the way of almost any new American small arms development. I cannot imagine what Magpul went through. But this is the fault of our government, not our manufacturing base.”
This is what keeps new designs out of the market. Companies like H&K and FN have IRAD to through at problems and can do their R&D overseas.
The only time we’re going to see something “new” is if we move to a new form of ammunition. The metallic cartridge is constrained to the designs of the last 100 years. So, anything “new” will be an evolution of existing designs, not a revolution.
However, manufacturing technology does change, and it’s that technology that will allow for advances along the current genus of weapons. Newer, lighter, more durable metals. More use of plastics and polymers. The inclusion of a wider array of optics and accessories. The MagPul ACR (now being developed and produced by Bushmaster) was really the newest thing we’ve seen in quite a while. I hope it makes it to the civvy market, as my three ARs are starting to seem “old”.
I think we can both agree that American designs and manufacturers would benefit if the ATF(E) would get the hell out of the way.
“The only time we’re going to see something “new” is if we move to a new form of ammunition. The metallic cartridge is constrained to the designs of the last 100 years. So, anything “new” will be an evolution of existing designs, not a revolution.”
Caseless is not practical as it stands, so we’ll have cased ammunition for some time to come. Possibly polymer case, but if the military does that, it’ll put a pretty serious crimp in my reloading. ;)
“The MagPul ACR (now being developed and produced by Bushmaster) was really the newest thing we’ve seen in quite a while. I hope it makes it to the civvy market, as my three ARs are starting to seem “old”.”
Kel-Tec’s .308 bullpup looks interesting. Especially the forward eject.
I’d like to see the return of service-owned arms development as run by the Springfield Armory (the whiz kids thought better, so they closed it down). With solicitations for new designs complete with parts. The SBIR system helps in funding small designers, but weapons development is both mostly illegal thanks to the laws and expensive.
Another problem is that politics, not quality, is also a consideration for procurement from foreign sources. The M9 pistol is not really the BEST weapon in its class, is it? No.
“I think we can both agree that American designs and manufacturers would benefit if the ATF(E) would get the hell out of the way.”
Absolutely.
A much superior weapon is the HK-91. the 93 is the 5.56 version. Both are vastly superior to the M-16, because they are fully gas operated in a way that guarantees reliability. They vent spent gases through the chamber through grooves between the casing and chamber. This forces the casing to release itself from the chamber before the gases drive the bolt rearward. This eliminates the need for an extractor. The ejector is also brilliantly engineered.
I have seen demonstrations of this weapon being dipped in mud, mixed with sand and salt water, fired, dipped again, fired, and then buried in dry desert sand and immediately fired on full auto. And it never missed a beat the whole time. (Try that with an M-16)
they need to look hard at the FN-SCAR...in 5.56 or 6.8SPC.
The M9A1 is made by Beretta USA.
OH, I agree the AR is more finely built, and much more ACCURATE than the AK. Just not neary so RELIABLE.
The M-16 and it's variants works just fine if they are properly cared for. What they are not designed to do is, as they were in the attack in Afghanistan, required to fire over 3000 rounds in a sustained fire fight. We aren't geared to fight that way. We are geared to pin the enemy then destroy them with fire support. Are fights are not suppose to last this long
What happened in Afghanistan was some one in the chain of command screwed up. Those guys should not of been left hanging out on the end of a limb unspupported like that.
The AR is just as reliable as the AK, if you perform some cleaning once in a while. Its not like having to brush your teeth or anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.